Catholic-lite, actually. Episcopalian. All the Godly nourishment of Catholics, but now with more wives! Mom was raised baptist in the bible belt. I think that once she got tired of beating herself for existing, she became Episcopalian. Still is.

And as a thank you for consenting to exchange ideas beyond what you find from one source, I'll finally pony up with my true belief system. My wife and I are both Buddhists. Though Buddhism isn't "really" a belief system because a belief requires an attachment, and I won't bore you with any more of it than that - it gets tediously scientific at its roots, though most only know the surface of it - monks and meditation and little round bellied statues and all that



I'm not sure I agree with Jayne's theories, necessarily, but for sure your son, at least, will find the theories and findings interesting at the least. Hopefully you will, too. (You can wiki bicameralism, for what it's worth. Jayne's book is always mentioned there, but the wiki's of course, don't do the lengthy historical inquiries, brain experiments, and findings of Jaynes himself any justice.)

(And I still recommend Godel, Escher, Bach - but man. That's a tough one to read Has nothing to do with religion, per se. More about observing systems and recursiveness (to water it down completely.)

Lula wrote earlier:


Yes, I've actually been to the Vatican and wasn't killed by lightning. Perhaps 5 years were even taken off my sentence in hell by the proximity? Ok, I'm kidding, I'm kidding. <---smiley face.

I'm not sure you'd be too happy with the Catholics here, Lula. But I encourage you to visit and see for yourself.

I've seen a lot of different stuff in the two years I've been here. And I have a year to go. 22 European and West African countries and counting. I recommend such exposure to the world to all...it's been eye opening, to say the least.

Hi Ock,

Actually, at the time, on Galileo, the Church DID, as you say, call the best shots.

The link you provided is fine as far as it goes, but there is more to the story.

Truth is, even though the Church has been criticized for centuries adnauseum feeding this myth, Galileo was not punished with house arrest for suggesting the world was round or for his scientific study.

The complaint against him was that he insisted on changing Scripture to conform to his scientific findings (which were correct but could not be proven empirically at the time despite his insistence. Christ forbade the changing of Scripture and the Church upheld that. The Church's action was consistent with its God given mission of guarding the integrity of the Faith.

At 70, Galileo was put under his own "house arrest" where he lived very comfortably and where he continued to work on motion and gravity. The judicial process against Galileo was reasonable and just. Descartes remarked that the action taken against him was merely disciplinarian of a committee and the Pope never confirmed the verdict.

Let's go over what happened..

IN 1616, Galileo had been brought up on a charge of adding new data to Copernicus' heliocentric theory which seemed to contradict the plain words of Sacred Scripture; Joshua 10:13. The Church didn't base their judgment on the scientific data not did they condemn Copernicus (who was a priest btw)of his writing. In fact, Copernicicus' "De Revolutionibus Orbium" had been in print for nearly 70 years before the Chruch placed any restrictions on its teachings. This was triggered by Galileo's "Letter to Castelli", an apology for Copernicanism which advocated changing Sacred Scripture in order to resolve the apparent conflicts with the Bible.

The link provides the following:


While the Catholic Church ALLOWED the publication of Copernicus' work, Calvin and Luther condemned it on spiritual grounds. Some of the technical difficulties were dealt with by Kepler; they made the geocentric theory more plausible, but Kepler was persecuted by the Protestants in Tubingen and had to flee to the Jesuits for protection in 1596.

In obedience to the ruling, Galileo promised to teach Copernicanism no more, and in the following year, the Congregation of the Index, prohibited the presentation of the COpernicanism theory as a mere hypothesis. In 1632, Galileo published a work advocating Copernicanism. On that he went beyond the field of science as a mathematician but rather as a philosopher.


He imagined himself abolishing the Aristolelian-THomist philosophy andentered into a realm of theology by proposing in a letter to Fr. Castelli that Scripture should be modified that mentioned the movements of the sun and earth. It was on this account that he was summoned again and placed in "home arrest" for life.

In any case, I can accept the interpretation that divine intervention did occur in Joshua 10:13. That is the Lord God arranged to have giant hailstones smite the Amorrites and cause lengthened darkness during a severe thunderstorm to confuse them. I do not see Scripture here rules out that the earth continued in its orbit around the sun at the time even though joshua could not see it.

If one were to ask me, "Can the Creator make the sun stop in its orbit for a whole day?" I would say sure becasue neither I nor Galileo nor anybody else can put a limit on the power of God to do as He wishes, His ways not being our ways.



Recent Popes have taught definitively that figurative senses conveyed according to appearances are employed in the Bible and we know that Scripture must be understood in the sense intended by the writers under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Psalms 93, 96, and 104 are cited as proofs of geocentrisim is asserted in Scripture would require acceptance in a literal sense, but the same passages are open to understanding in the figurative sense.

A similiar phenomenon as in Joshua 10:13 occurred at Fatima on Oct. 13, 1917 when the sun was seen by 70,000 people to spin like a wheel on fire and the rays came rushing down like a pinwheel toward the earth. There are news accounts of this. Many eyewitnesses experienced miracles of healing and conversions as in bringing mankind back to a fear of God.

Be well, Ock. Enjoy being in Italy!

Are you sure the Earth is moving? How do we know that everything doesn't spin around the Earth, and the Earth is really staying perfectly still? I mean, I look out at the sun, and the sun moves - I'm not moving. I'm perfectly still. How can you say the sun is moving with any more accuracy than the sun is not moving, when all motion is relative? I've heard it said that the sun is moving around an even bigger thing, too. So the sun is moving around something, the earth is moving around the sun, and the moon is moving around the earth... or the Earth is staying still and everything else is going really fast.

So what's staying still? Is that thing the sun is going around going around something else too? Is THAT staying still?

If everything is moving... and nothing is staying still... then, how do we know we're moving at all?

Are you sure the Earth is moving? How do we know that everything doesn't spin around the Earth, and the Earth is really staying perfectly still? I mean, I look out at the sun, and the sun moves - I'm not moving. I'm perfectly still. How can you say the sun is moving with any more accuracy than the sun is not moving, when all motion is relative? I've heard it said that the sun is moving around an even bigger thing, too. So the sun is moving around something, the earth is moving around the sun, and the moon is moving around the earth... or the Earth is staying still and everything else is going really fast. So what's staying still? Is that thing the sun is going around going around something else too? Is THAT staying still? If everything is moving... and nothing is staying still... then, how do we know we're moving at all?

In relative motion, you can only be confused if you have two frames of reference - yours and another object's against a backdrop of nothing. In that case, you're right. It would be irrational to try to determine whether or not you were moving, it was moving, or you both were moving.

That's not the case, fortunately. We have numerous (understatement) objects to measure redshifts between. between each other, and between us. Using all those measurements, motion is quite detectable. Using science, which sadly, you're not demonstrating much knowledge of.

Lula, as far as Galileo goes, you're missing the entire point. I have read Galileo's letter to the church, and in it contains a point I've made here and other places. To wit:

It is necessary for the Bible, in order to be accommodated to the understanding of every man, to speak many things which appear to differ from the absolute truth so far as the meaning of the words is concerned. But Nature, on the other hand, is inexorable and immutable; she never transgresses the laws imposed upon her, or cares a whit whether her abstruse reasons and methods of operation are understandable to men. For that reason it appears that nothing physical which sense-experience sets before our eyes, or which necessary demonstrations prove to us, ought to be called in question (much less condemned) upon the testimony of biblical passages which may have some different meaning beneath their words. For the Bible is not chained in every expression to conditions as strict as those which govern all physical effects; nor is God any less excellently revealed in Nature’s actions than in sacred statements of the Bible.

This is the heinous thing Galileo suggested that you call "attempting to rewrite scripture." What I see is that he was suggesting that Nature is ALSO the word of God, and that observing it, like the Bible, with the same tenacity, reveals truths before unknown "for sure" to mankind, and as such should be important to the exposition of the Bible, which he found far less testable (and so do I) than the movement of heavenly bodies, for instance. Sounds reasonable to me.

Now here's a piece of the letter from the church to Galileo.

This Holy Tribunal being therefore desirous of proceeding against the disorder and mischief thence resulting, which went on increasing to the prejudice of the Holy Faith, by command of his Holiness and of the most eminent Lords Cardinals of this supreme and universal Inquisition, the two propositions of the stability of the sun and the motion of the earth were by the theological “Qualifiers’s qualified as follows: The proposition that the sun is the centre of the world and does not move from its place is absurd and false philosophically and formally heretical, because it is expressly contrary to the Holy Scripture. The proposition that the earth is not the centre of the world and immovable, but that it moves, and also with a diurnal motion, is equally absurd and false philosophically, and theologically considered, at least erroneous in faith.

So the point you've missed in all this, regardless of what the church THOUGHT Galileo was doing, was that they were wrong, and he was right. The church's reasoning is that his theories were wrong because it wasn't in accordance with Holy Scriptures.

The truth is, it wasn't in accordance with "THEIR INTERPRETATION" of those scriptures.

At the time, I can imagine someone, maybe a fellow scientist, or a friend, may have remarked to Galileo "Yeah, the earth might be moving around the sun, but we can't determine that for sure, so what does it matter?" Sound familiar? His answer is the same as mine is. Because if it is true, then that truth needs to be integrated into interpretation in order to arrive at a more correct interpretation of that Book - (the book itself is unmutable, but human interpretation of it definitely is - which is why there are so many different versions).

Now, another thought occurred to me regarding, mainly, yours and KFC's ongoing discussion of Biblical text, and in some part Jythier as well. Lula is Catholic. KFC is Protestant. I don't know Jythier's denomination. According to fundamentalism, which at least from my viewpoint you all clearly are, there are only two possibilities. One of you is right. None of you are. So. Which two of you are wrong?

Don't answer that, because I don't believe any of you are. For what it's worth, here is free insight into the mind of Ock, which at this point you may have determined is a dark, horrible, misguided and confused place. I see, metaphorically, that religious beliefs are like facets on the same gem. Some facets share a side - they are relatively close together with just a few differences. Some facets are on the entire other side of the gem and are in diametric opposition *in viewpoint* to one another. All facets work toward the same purpose - to understand the gem. For me, the great sin against Creation is to divide those facets as if they are not a part of the same whole - raising one above the other as if you could remove "that" facet and have the gem remain intact, but not "your" facet.. Yes, I know you do not agree - you're fundamentalists, so your facet of the gem HAS to be the right one, or the gem, as you see it, stops existing.

Fundamentalists approach the Truth (as you call it Lula) from inside a box (as did the Roman Inquisition). You start with the premise that the Bible is the Holy Word of God, and then if something becomes visible in nature that isn't in accordance with your previous interpretations, you set out to, (like Jythier did earlier), postulate ridiculous things like "how do we know we're moving at all." In this way Truth is forced to serve faith. (We can't know if that's true, Ock, so why does it matter?) It should be the other way around. Faith should serve Truth, and many truths, including that the world is orbitting around the sun, can be proven. Many new Truths are discovered yearly - through scientific observation of data in Nature. Traditionally, fundamentalism and science have been at odds. How much greater might the real Truth be than what we understand right now? Certainly that Truth has expanded in the minds of mankind as they seek to understand that Other Word of God - namely Nature. In any case, one will never know by staying in the box and claiming that nothing at all exists outside of it. That's what I meant by "ask Galileo and Copernicus."

How do you know those other objects aren't just moving the exact same way as everything else? Can you prove they're not all moving, and we're standing still?

But really, it doesn't matter either way.

OCK POSTS:

Once again, from the Church's standpoint: On Feb. 25, 1616, Cardinal Bellarmine commanded Galileo to abandon the Coperican Theory which the consulters of the Congregation of the Index had censured as heretical.

The first interrogatory of Galileo took place on April 12th and the last on June 21. The interrogatories dealt with 2 points, re: the question of heretical fact and the one of heretical intention.

The question of Fact---Had Galileo taught in Dialogo the opinion condemned by the decree of 1616 and which the COngregation of the Index had forbidden him to defend in any form (quovis modo) ?

The question of Intention---Had Galileo, as a matter of fact held as true this condemned theory?

The Tribunal found that in Galileo's book, he had taught the theory positively and categorically as an objective truth. The Church found Galileo guilty on both the question of Fact and Intent. The Church's condemnation of Galileo has been questioned for centuries by non-Catholics. The two main ones are isn't the Church wrong to deal with scientific questions which are totally outside their realm and isn't the Chruch in reality hostile to science.

The question is essentially a religious one though becasue it involved the meaning of certain passages of Scripture. The Church was not called upon to decide whether or not the Copernicain Theory was true. It was called upon to render a disciplinary decree of the guilt of Galileo for his disobedience of orders. The reasons were doctrinal, in as much as they tried him for what they considered heretical opinions posed as objective truth.

As an interesting aside, we have practically the same deal today. Connecting the Church, science, Scripture, with opinions posed as objective truth, the Church today knows, as most of us do, that the Darwin's macro-Evolution hasn't been proven...it's only theory and she condemns teaching it as proven fact.

:

Not so fast, Ock.

You'd like reading "The Privileged Planet: How our place in the Cosmos is designed for discovery" by Guillermo GOnzelez and Jay Richards becasue they examine the Copernician principle and the "flawed " idea that there is nothing special about Earth in its place in the universe, as well as our neighboring planets and other solar systems. They pose the idea that we are at the center of the cosmos after all...at least from God's Creative point of view!

Did He design our surroundings for us to discover information about them? The earth is not only carefully designed to support life, but to give us the best possible view of the universe--almost as if the Creator wanted to help us discover His handiwork.

*throws in the towel* I have just learned a valuable lesson. Not the one you taught, but thanks anyway. So long.

OCK POSTS:

We've got to be very careful what we call the "Word" of God. Nature ain't it.

In his letter to Father Castelli, Galileo said, "In questions of natural science the BIble ought to take the last place. Both nature and the Bible come from God; the one has been inspired by the Holy Spirit, while the other faithfully obeys the laws established by God. ....One, therefore, ought not to cite texts of Scripture agasinst a fact clearly proved by visible observations...The Holy Spirit has no intention of teaching us through the Holy Scriptures that the sun moves or that the sun does not move....Can anyone maintain that the Holy Spirit wishes to teach us anything which does not concern our salvation?"

P.S. KFC, the book is on order, and Barnes & Noble is usually pretty fast (How I miss being able to walk a nice big bookstore...sigh). At the end of October I begin another sojourn touring the west coast of Africa for 45 days (approximately). Due to all the preparations involved, which will involve a lot of my time, I'll probably start the book and then finish it while away. I will find a way, probably will just post on this thread, to let you know I've received it and have begun my read.

Ciao.

You learned... what? When have we ever found an object that is perfectly still? The only possibility for an object to be perfectly still is at a temperature of 0 Kelvin. What has science found that has that temperature? That would prove that something was not, in fact, moving. So we could base all other motion off that. I can't think of another way to prove that something is standing still in the universe, and therefore we could base movement off that.

Wasn't talking to you, J.

Ah, sorry, I thought I was being pig-headed enough to warrant that comment, Ock.

this is exactly right Ock. I agree.



hahahah I say this all the time. This is logical. Actually Jythier and I are in pretty much almost total agreement. I think Jythier would say he's a fundie like I say I am.



Ok, I'll look forward to it. And if per se I miss you or your thread (if you decide to blog on this)drop me a line somewhere and I'll make sure I comment one way or the other. I'll have to go get a copy myself as I've given mine away.

On Galileo....

Up until this time the church had their own explanations for everything and people trusted the church's explanation. After Galileo the world would never again let the church choose how peopel viewed their physical world. That would become the task of scientists.

In the realm of science it seems as tho this all started in the mid 1500's with Nicolas Copernicus who challenged the common world view. Several ancient Greeks had suggested that the earth rotated around the sun and Copernicus realized mathematically a sun centered universe made more sense than an earth centered universe. He knew the repercussions this would make so he decided not to release his findings until on his deathbed.

All Galileo did was pick up the ideas of Copernicus and dared to speak them aloud not willing to wait until his deathbed to release his own findings.

Lula, this is just another man (like Luther) who dared to speak up to the powerful CC. But even then, they were too much for him. He reduced his ideas from theories to speculations and spent the rest of his life under house arrest. But, not unlike Luther, he too started a revolution that no church would be able to confine.

KFC, I hope I'm not misinterpreting this, but I think we just found common ground.

Namaste.